United Democratic Movement v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others

Parliament enacted four pieces of legislation in June 2002 permitting limited periods of ‘floor-crossing’ (defection) by elected representatives in the National Assembly, provincial legislatures and local government, suspending existing anti-defection provisions. The United Democratic Movement (UDM), a minority political party, urgently approached the Cape High Court to suspend the commencement and operation of the Acts, alleging unconstitutionality. The High Court and a Full Court granted interim orders suspending the legislation pending a Constitutional Court challenge. The President and other executive authorities appealed directly to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to suspend Acts of Parliament, particularly constitutional amendments.

Leave to appeal was granted; the appeal succeeded. The interim orders of the High Court and Full Court suspending the impugned legislation were set aside. Interim stabilising relief previously ordered by the Constitutional Court remained in place pending final determination of the constitutional challenge.

The case is a leading authority on the limits of High Court jurisdiction to grant interim relief against Acts of Parliament and affirms the Constitutional Court’s exclusive role in suspending legislation, especially constitutional amendments. It reinforces separation of powers and clarifies that courts may not lightly interfere with duly enacted legislation.